Didn't the judge also say if he was aware of Bhaji's previous offences the outcome would have been different? I can't see how what's written there constitutes a 'no' in reply to my post.

Yes, he did. But that was in reference to the punishment under 2.8 (using general obscene, offensive or insulting language). If he had had the records of prior transgressions of Harbhajan, (which were under 2.8) he would have punished him more severely under 2.8. But he found him to be not guilty under 3.3. Prior transgressions under 2.8 would have had no effect on this (He was aware of the problems during the Indian tour bet. Harbhajan and Symonds over the alleged use of the word though).

Yes, he did. But that was in reference to the punishment under 2.8 (using general obscene, offensive or insulting language). If he had had the records of prior transgressions of Harbhajan, (which were under 2.8) he would have punished him more severely under 2.8. But he found him to be not guilty under 3.3. Prior transgressions under 2.8 would have had no effect on this (He was aware of the problems during the Indian tour bet. Harbhajan and Symonds over the alleged use of the word though).

It comes down to a lack of tangible evidence though doesn't it? It was basically one player's word against another. Harbhajan may have said what he was accused of, he may not. A decision had to be made based on what was available and there was enough doubt to suggest he didn't...it's not a definitive judgement though, it's simply what we have to go with based on the evidence. Only Harbhajan and Symonds know what actually happened and whether the judgement was fair or otherwise. That's the way it works. If Harby has killed Symonds and we had a body to work with as well as video evidence of the crime then there'd be some concrete judgements to pass down.

R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball

It comes down to a lack of tangible evidence though doesn't it? It was basically one player's word against another. Harbhajan may have said what he was accused of, he may not. A decision had to be made based on what was available and there was enough doubt to suggest he didn't...it's not a definitive judgement though, it's simply what we have to go with based on the evidence. Only Harbhajan and Symonds know what actually happened and whether the judgement was fair or otherwise. That's the way it works. If Harby has killed Symonds and we had a body to work with as well as video evidence of the crime then there'd be some concrete judgements to pass down.

That's why the judgement was interesting. It disregarded the fact that Symonds downgraded the charge and also the lack of evidence:

"However, given it is an objective interpretation that is not the end of the matter. I must consider if the "ordinary person" would have been offended in a 3.3 sense. That again requires a look at context. Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition, of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive under 2.8. But in my view even if he had used the words "alleged" an "ordinary person" standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.

So on that alternative basis I would also have been satisfied that the requirements of 3.3 were not met. So as to summarise that ground. Firstly, Mr Symonds through counsel accepts he was not offended in a 3.3 sense. Secondly on an objective basis I do not consider the response transgressed against 3.3."

That's why the judgement was interesting. It disregarded the fact that Symonds downgraded the charge and also the lack of evidence:

"However, given it is an objective interpretation that is not the end of the matter. I must consider if the "ordinary person" would have been offended in a 3.3 sense. That again requires a look at context. Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition, of the game acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back. He accepts that his language was such as to be offensive under 2.8. But in my view even if he had used the words "alleged" an "ordinary person" standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3.

So on that alternative basis I would also have been satisfied that the requirements of 3.3 were not met. So as to summarise that ground. Firstly, Mr Symonds through counsel accepts he was not offended in a 3.3 sense. Secondly on an objective basis I do not consider the response transgressed against 3.3."

These are quite funny to read actually. 'Such as to be'...'So as to summarise that ground'...it's like he's trying to fit in as many turns of phrase as possible into the one sentence.

These are quite funny to read actually. 'Such as to be'...'So as to summarise that ground'...it's like he's trying to fit in as many turns of phrase as possible into the one sentence.

isn't that common with all guys involved with law though??????

We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

A bit of an update. On the news they were saying that there is now footage which shows that after the slap, while Sreesanth was being consoled by teamamtes that Harbi went over to him again and this time they got into the wrestling match that was being reported.

Also there's footage and testimony now that Harbhajan was the one who was being obnoxious to Sree when the two were on the field, and the umpire who initally claimed Sree was sledging incessantly has now retracted that comment.

Bhajji has also written a letter to the BCCI begging for "one last chance."

Oh man, the report is due to be published next Monday or Tuesday, can't wait for this.